×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Releases Chrome 12

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the shiny-and-new dept.

Chrome 188

An anonymous reader noted something that will be of interest to the 26% of Slashdot readers who have switched to Chrome: "Google has released Chrome 12, adding plenty of new features to its minimalist web browser and fixing a number of security vulnerabilities. Google software engineer Adrienne Walker said of the safe browsing mode, 'We've carefully designed this feature so that malicious content can be detected without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

188 comments

Version numbers (5, Informative)

gizmod (931775) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386644)

Sheesh, these browser version numbers are climbing quickly. Quick release cycles these days. Firefox 5 is allready in beta.

Re:Version numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386672)

I pity Debian in all of this.

Re:Version numbers (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386930)

Depends on how much of the release-churn is purely internal, and how much involves ever-climbing demands on the version numbers of dependencies...

For applications that are relatively self-contained, and make few, or very conservative, demands about their environment, it really isn't a big deal. Where things get ugly, for users of debian stable or other slow-moving distributions(some of the enterprise desktop stuff can get rather long in the tooth as well...), is the applications that expect their environment to be as bleeding-edge as they are.

Having apt report that Foo N+1 is available every damn time it runs is a minor nuisance. Having to maintain an entire parallel universe of libraries and stuff grabbed from testing or unstable just to update your browser is a major nuisance.

Re:Version numbers (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387406)

For applications that are relatively self-contained, and make few, or very conservative, demands about their environment, it really isn't a big deal.

This cuts both ways. Google has grabbed a bunch of open source libraries, sometimes respecting the license, hacked on them, and rolled them into Chrom*.

So, with Chrome you've got a bunch of bloat and dead-end forks on your machine. Tom Callaway, Fedora contributor, has a Chromium repo that factors this all back out, using the upstream libraries directly. So, when there's a security fix in an upstream library, you get it before Google does a rev. or two.

And of course the binaries are smaller. For shared libraries, the system memory usage will be lighter as well.

Re:Version numbers (3)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387518)

That is certainly true. There are excellent reasons why the linux-style light-binaries-that-specify-lots-of-dependencies + a good package manager to sort it all out model is desirable. And, even if you go with a gigantic static binary in the end for convenience of installation, having a source like the one you describe, where everything is neatly broken out, is highly desireable: It is comparatively simple, with the right tools, to turn a list of dependencies into a big static blob. The reverse, not so much.

My point was narrowly addressed from the user side: Unless your environment is so slow moving that X is missing major features or such, installing a new iteration of a big static blob every week isn't a big deal, even if it is architecturally ugly. Something that nicely breaks out the dependencies, on the other hand, can involve very, very, "interesting" explorations into package-management hell and upgrading half your system with questionably compatible backports from Unstable.

In an ideal world, you would really want something like Callaway's work to be the 'canonical' version, ready to be slotted into sufficiently new or fast moving distributions, with the option of programmatically emblobifying the whole mass into a simple-to-install lump for situations where you can't tamper with the system's shared libraries.

Re:Version numbers (3, Interesting)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386696)

I have Chromium 12.0.742.91 on my computer. Have they really made hundreds of beta releases?

Re:Version numbers (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387024)

I have Chromium 12.0.742.91 on my computer. Have they really made hundreds of beta releases?

Not betas, but builds.

I wonder how many versions of Chrome will ever have a minor version number greater than '0'? I don't recall seeing one recently (at least since Chrome 4).

Re:Version numbers (2)

jitterman (987991) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387306)

And today (maybe yesterday) they released 13.0.782.11, which replaced 13.0.782.10, which (I kid you not) replaced 13.0.782.1 (no zero at the end, otherwise, same number). I draw the conclusion that they are happy to make an install available every time they push the "compile" button.

You can see the build history (and get any of them that you want to) at Filehippo [filehippo.com]

Re:Version numbers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387540)

And today (maybe yesterday) they released 13.0.782.11, which replaced 13.0.782.10, which (I kid you not) replaced 13.0.782.1 (no zero at the end, otherwise, same number). I draw the conclusion that they are happy to make an install available every time they push the "compile" button.

A single number doesn't allow you to take branches into account. Version 13's stable branch is 782. After branching 13.0.782.0, a bug was fixed, and that build (13.0.782.1) was released. Nine more bugs were found and fixed, and 13.0.782.10 was released.

Every build that might conceivably be released gets a unique number. This way you know exactly what code was in a user's build when they report bugs. Chromium is open source, and anyone can cut a release at any time.

I have no idea why people get so upset over the way version numbers change. The only reason you should need to see a version number is when reporting a bug.

Re:Version numbers (2)

starofale (1976650) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387628)

If you're on the dev channel what do you expect?

Re:Version numbers (1)

jitterman (987991) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387822)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I do install every build just to see what they're doing with the code, and it doesn't bother me to do it regularly. My post was only to let Lunaritian know that if he wants to move up or down on his installed version, he can easily find any release he wishes.

I think it's cool of them to let those of us who wish it grab their latest builds, and that they tend to patch bugs quickly (hence "*happy* to make an install available..." it's a good thing, not a gripe).

Re:Version numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386704)

Part of me can't help but suspect that it's so Firefox, with a measly version 4, looks new and less trustworthy.
A piece of software with 12 versions under its belt seems a bit more time-proven than one with 4.

Re:Version numbers (3, Informative)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386756)

Mozilla has already changed to "Chrome numbering", they're currently developing versions 5, 6 and 7...

Re:Version numbers (1)

BreezeC (2040184) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386780)

Firefox 5 will release this month later.
I don't see any new feature in firefox 5.
Firefox 5 like Linux 3.0.0,just the number.
I hate number,I don't need number.

Re:Version numbers (2)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386856)

I understand Linux going to Linux 3.0.0, though. I have moved to a release-early-release-often model and it has made it where every release I do is either a minor release or a maintenance/patch release. So what I have started doing is incrementing the major version number after I the software has become much more advanced and updated than it was compared to the previous major version number.

So if I am at version 6.47.10 and compared to 6.0.0 it is a greatly different and improved product, I go ahead and up the next release to 7.0.0 even though it is a minor release.

In the release early-and-often model, you really don't spend a lot of time between releases working on major upgrades. You do all the major upgrades slowly and incrementally across several minor updates.

Chrome and Firefox, however, are just playing the version number padding game. Opera and IE have slowly built up to their major version numbers.

I understand some people do not care about version numbers, but when you develop against software and libraries they become important. Whether you prefer X.Y.Z or YYYY.MM.DD or YYYY.X as your versioning scheme, that is just personal preference. Personally if you are going to increment major version numbers just for the sake of it then I'd go with a YYYY.X version model (e.g.: 2011.1, 2011.2, 2011.3).

Re:Version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386908)

IE hardly changed because IE was left to rot after MS won the Browser War I. They're also tied to the OS, according to their defense in various anti-trust cases.

Re:Version numbers (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387022)

It is because corporate users freak out when they here upgrade. IE is now on an anual upgrade to keep up. IE upgrades are big and less gradual but IE 10 should be able to keep up.

Re:Version numbers (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387208)

It was the tying to the OS that was the problem.
Don't want to regularly update a browser? Don't HAVE a browser.

Firefox had a 6 version headstart with Netscape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386996)

So look at it like them having 6 free version bumps.

Re:Firefox had a 6 version headstart with Netscape (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387176)

Even though Firefox is a completely different beast than Netscape, it is the successor to Netscape so I agree with you to some extent.

What is really sad is my traffic analytics still report the occasional Netscape 4.x visitor. Poor, poor bastards.

Re:Version numbers (1)

lcarnevale (1691570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387158)

Look at the bright side of it (?), in a few years you would be using Chrome 452, while people will be stuck in their only two digit version browsers like Firefox 10 (or less at this pace) and IE 18

Re:Version numbers (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387706)

Sheesh, these browser version numbers are climbing quickly.

Reminds me of some of my code under source control. Since any committed code increments the version number i have versions in the thousands. not all releasable however.

Maybe we should be labeling software based off the current version, since software like chrome is automatically upgraded anyway. for instance if you are one version from the current you browser will say chrome -1. the current would just be chrome without a version number. it would give a social incentive to upgrade, and show how far you are behind.

First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386656)

Wow, Chrome 12 is so fast, I got FP!

Re:First post (2)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386700)

Are you sure you remembered to upgrade?

Re:First post (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387056)

Are you sure you remembered to upgrade?

In Googleverse, Chrome updates you! It really does - it automatically updates the browser to the latest version. I just make copies of each major version for testing (much easier on the Mac than Win; not sure how Chrome updates Linux installs).

I'm waiting for Chrome 42 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386674)

I think it'll be out in February. Chrome 69 anyone?

Wow, 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386702)

12 is definetely better than 11, 9 or 4.

Chrome doesn't know what URLs you visit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386714)

malicious content can be detected without Chrome...ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download

Uhh.....how exactly does a web browser function without knowing what URLs you visit?

Re:Chrome doesn't know what URLs you visit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386820)

Uhh.....how exactly does a web browser function without knowing what URLs you visit?

You have to go there in person.

Re:Chrome doesn't know what URLs you visit? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386852)

I'm assuming that the clarification lies in the bit you elided: Chrome doesn't have to report to Our Google Overlords the URLs you visit for it to work, and Chrome doesn't need to "know about" the URLs in question(ie. it doesn't have to do some AV-like "download-list-of-the-500,000-new-malicious-URLs-for-today" behavior).

I don't know if the statement is mere fluffy hyperbole about some rather rudimentary heuristic mechanism(along the lines of the existing handy-but-not-rocket-science feature of offering to disable javascript popups for any site that has opened, and had closed by the user, a certain number of the things, which does help prevent one of the classic "trap the noob" techniques used by the malicious) or whether it is something extremely clever; but it isn't immediately incoherent or logically impossible.

Re:Chrome doesn't know what URLs you visit? (1)

xquark (649804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387450)

I believe they use two sets of bloom filters one for known bad sites and one for known good sites - each is roughly ~1.5MB large and can be found in your google install dir, Search for files with the word "filter" in their name.

26% gave their soul's to the devil... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386724)

...while the other 74% gave their hearts to open source Firefox. ;)

Re:26% gave their soul's to the devil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386796)

Troll.

Re:26% gave their soul's to the devil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386830)

74% must love bloated shitware written by people who don't know how to use malloc() and free() properly.

Re:26% gave their soul's to the devil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387410)

Isn't 26% the total WWW percentage (measured by dubious means)? Slashdot could be significantly lower (or as I suspect significantly higher) than that.

Did they add noscript yet? (1, Interesting)

Jartan (219704) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386762)

I don't understand how geeks could consider using the web without noscript. I shudder at the thought of letting Slashdot actually run all the shitty scripting stuff they want to run.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386814)

But how will Google make money if you keep your information to yourself?

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387830)

If you are referencing Google Analytics (which plagues the entire web) then Google released an extension in '09 which disables tracking so it doesn't connect to the GA server. So I guess the answer to your trolling rhetorical question is: via Chrome, HOSTS blocking, or JS filtering.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386918)

May want to give NotScripts a try:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en-US

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386944)

Beats me. That's a dealbreaker. Switching from IE to Chrome, OK, I can see that. But from Firefox? I just don't get it.

Of course, I'm posting this from Lynx (for realsies) so I may not be representative even of Slashtards.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387072)

AdBlock Plus, NotScripts, and WebDeveloper are available for Chrome which are the only plugins I really would consider "must have".

Chrome is, for me, significantly faster than Firefox 4 on 64-bit Ubuntu, Windows 7 and Windows XP. It starts up faster, uses less memory, renders pages faster -- all of it.

Yesterday, after viewing dozens of documents in multiple tabs on the web, memory use in Firefox had climbed on my system to over 1 Gb. Closing down and opening the same set of tabs in Chrome, I proceeded to work in that for the rest of the day. Memory usage peaked at 380 Mb, and hovered around 250 Mb.

I could feel Firefox starting to bog down as the day wore on. I did not get that feeling with Chrome.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387280)

Do you have a suggestion for firefox-like live bookmark folders in Chrome? I've tried a couple of the RSS chrome extensions, but none of them feel right.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387314)

Sorry, I don't use them so don't know what would be good or not.

Someone should start a website that lists Chrome extension equivalents to various FireFox add-ons.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387390)

It's not an add-on, it's a core firefox feature. That having been said, I agree. Also, try them. You can make a bookmark folder full of slashdot headlines and go straight to articles that look interesting.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

afex (693734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387542)

do you have anything against google reader? i used to hate it but when i moved to chrome i decided to give it a fair chance, and haven't looked back.

(i know that doesn't exactly answer your question, but...)

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387364)

Notscripts' user interface is complete shite compared to noscript and actually lacks functionality, it's not just hard to use. This is the one thing that stops me from leaving Firefox. Well, that and that back when I was using chrome they would often break things in the dailies, but you had to use dailies to even get decent cookie management.

As long as noscript is better on Firefox, I will continue to use (and preach!) Firefox.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387214)

Switching - I wouldn't recommend it. However, having both installed does make sense. I make sure to install Firefox AND Chrome on every PC/laptop in the home. Firefox is great for casual browsing, but when in a hurry, I find that Chrome is the better browser to use. Especially on older PCs, it starts up much faster. You might not be as safe without the must have add ons, but if all you need to do is check your email, weather, bank account, etc, its worth the minimal risk.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

Mateorabi (108522) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387428)

I find a basic Chrome install is nice for online banking in a separate browser without having to quit Firefox and reload just to have a clean, banking-only browsing session.

Now if only they'd let you choose to install it somewhere other than 'Documents and Settings'.........grrrrr.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387546)

Maybe because FF is bloatware? Maybe?
 
The glory days of FF are far gone at this point. Those of you still hanging onto the past are dinosaurs.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387582)

Firefox + AdBlock Plus + NoScript + Flashblock... Must-haves. Chrome has some poor attempts at equivalents but they're not good enough to replace Firefox.

Why use Lynx when Links is way better? Lynx (and w3m) are poorly done 90's era text browsers.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387020)

I shudder at the thought of letting Slashdot actually run all the shitty scripting stuff they want to run.

Don't worry, /. scripting is like the weather. If you don't like it, just wait till tomorrow and they'll change it. Every day brings a brand new opportunity for them to screw it up in new and creative ways.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387122)

According to the creator of NoScript (Giorgio Maone) Chrome is incapable of running NoScript http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1676&sid=23a681ccbaa7d58b3c03c444af2de8f6&start=60 [informaction.com]

At this moment one of the major obstacles is the multi-processing design choosen by Chromium, which forbids every kind of synchronous communication between chrome and content and therefore prevents critical configuration data (e.g. NoScript's whitelist) from being safely and reliably shared across the application. Other APIs, especially in the networking area, are missing as well. By comparison Electrolysis (E10s), the new multi-processing design choosen by future Firefox (and current Firefox Mobile betas) poses challenges, but they're not impossible ("code just needs to be written") and in fact NoScript is being adapted.

NotScripts user interface is laggy and often misses domains. NotScripts does not have anywhere near the thorough level of protection that NoScript has.

Re:Did they add noscript yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387696)

If you have a fast enough PC, and little concern over security (through a combination of sandboxing/VMing/configuration for all browsers) then I regard fine-tuned JavaScript control as the type of OCD outburst that RPG/MMO gamers show. I used to be into that crap, when it made sense -- like with RequestPolicy, which is 1000x times better than NoScript -- but it's not going to stop many exploits these days, whereas 3 years ago it was a major security measure for browsing.

Then again my browsing habits aren't exactly commonplace. I haven't wanted to disable a specific page element in... well, I can't remember when. (Technically I guess that's possible with Chrome's inspector: you could BP the page and remove the script node.)

Guys: I need to know diff. between Chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386768)

and Google "Chrome". For example: I have "heard tell" (no, I can't produce you a quote) that CHROMIUM doesn't store things "up in the GOOGLE CLOUD" like passwords - whereas by way of comparison, Google CHROME, does.

That appeals to me on Chromium, personally (some of you may like it though, I don't - especially router passwords!).

(So, please: "Set me straight" on this IF I am "off/wrong" etc./et al, and, about anything else you can tell me are the differences between CHROMIUM & Chrome, IF any!)

* Thanks-In-Advance!

APK

P.S.=> Also, lastly: This isn't to spark some "religious fanatic war" on webbrowsers, especially CHROME vs. CHROMIUM!

(Heck - I am mainly an OPERA 11.11 user here anyhow),

However 0- I do like how FAST Chrome/Chromium are too, but, I'd really just like to know which of them is TRULY "the superior warrior" & how/why (mainly from those who are PRIMARILY Chrome/Chromium users, the best source imo)... apk

Re:Guys: I need to know diff. between Chromium (5, Informative)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386866)

Wikipedia lists the differences between Chrome and Chromium [wikipedia.org].

Lunaritian: Thank you VERY much (great stuff) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386968)

Someone mod Lunaritian up for being helpful to me please (I post as AC so I have no mod points etc., but IF I did? He'd get "INFORMATIVE" ratings from myself @ least!).

APK

Re:Lunaritian: Thank you VERY much (great stuff) (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387404)

Until you log in and play the big moderation game with the rest of us, thus proving that your messages are meant for others and not only to appease your own ego, there is no particular reason to heed your requests.

(My ego is massive, too. I am attempting to turn this bug into a feature by using it for good.)

Re:Guys: I need to know diff. between Chromium (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386870)

This should be useful:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome

Basically, tinhat types believe Google can track all of its Chrome users. In the beginning, there were a couple of things that were questionable - for example, giving each install a unique ID - but more than likely this was just for statistical records about Chrome uptake. People complained, Google responded... all user metrics can be turned on and off by the user.

So, Chrome is now Chromium, with some more features rolled in by Google, and vetted by the Google team. It's good to keep Chromium around, to keep Google honest and keep source for an alternative out in the open (and I guess to satisfy FOSS zealots), but if you're not concerned with such things, Chrome is IMO the better choice.

Someone mod this AC up too (thank you) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387002)

I don't have mod points, but your post is easily just as informative as Lunartian's was... I thank you for it, & I'd mod you up as INFORMATIVE myself, if I had mod points (I don't of course, I post as AC too).

APK

P.S.=>

"This should be useful:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome [google.com]"
- by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09, @09:09AM (#36386870)

Sure was... awesome stuff & again, thanks! apk

Re:Guys: I need to know diff. between Chromium (3, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386932)

I have "heard tell" (no, I can't produce you a quote) that CHROMIUM doesn't store things "up in the GOOGLE CLOUD" like passwords - whereas by way of comparison, Google CHROME, does.

Not quite. I know that Chrome has the option to set up "sync", which allows you to synchronize everything (passwords, bookmarks, etc) between Chrome installations. However, I have that disabled, and unless you can produce a quote or a link to the contrary, it seems much more likely that Chrome simply stores my passwords locally. It even integrates with local secure password stores -- in my case, since I run KDE4, Chrome stores my passwords in KWallet.

WoW: Never thought I'd say this to YOU, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387080)

Thank you, SanityInAnarchy (we've had "our differences" in the past here, but you're not that bad it seems). You have proven yourself as "pretty ok" by being willing to help me, & not troll me while doing it.

(There: LOL, I have said it... even though it took a "crowbar" to pry it out of me!)

The MAIN one that worried me, was browser interface passwords to my router(s) being stored someplace NOT on my systems... goes without saying I think!

APK

P.S.=> On quotes? Sorry man, like I said in my init. post??

I can't produce a quote of what I heard about Google's CHROME allegedly storing passwords "in the cloud" (on their servers etc.), as I don't USUALLY use Chrome OR Chromium (mainly Opera user here), & it seemed to "stick out in my mind" is all.

However... I have tried them recently, & their speed IS "up there" with Opera, easily & I like performance - especially online!

(Chrome/Chromium may in fact be perhaps even faster that Opera, just based on perception of using it here today, they just seem less "feature laden natively" than Opera)...apk

Re:Guys: I need to know diff. between Chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387514)

Last BUT NOT "least" - by way of comparison, does "Chrome" support HOSTS files?

Geez AC troll, OF COURSE IT DOES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387764)

If your Operating System uses a BSD-based IP stack, then, of course the browser does!

APK

P.S.=> QUESTION: What is your problem w/ HOSTS files, other than your apparent ignorance AND MISTAKES regarding HOSTS files (see below) as you troll me about them?

Some examples of your b.s. & UTTER SCREWUPS on HOSTS files the past few weeks now (& you've been @ it longer than THAT, by far):

---

E.G. #1 - LARGE HOSTS FILES BEING CACHED BY THE LOCAL KERNEL-MODE DISKCACHING SUBSYSTEM (yesterday no less, you screwed up THERE, hugely):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36379004 [slashdot.org]

E.G. #2 - HOSTS ON ANDROID PHONES (yes, they work there):

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2204000&cid=36318508 [slashdot.org]

---

Now: The only people I can see acting as YOU do, trolling me as you do about them nigh constantly (or downmodding my posts on them as well, like this one next below (taking it from a +4 INFORMATIVE down to a 0 INFORMATIVE yesterday)), are MALWARE MAKERS/BOTNET MASTERS!

They're the ONLY people I can see "railing against" HOSTS files!

... apk

Adding features to a minimalist web browser? (2)

JoeTalbott (2146840) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386782)

Isn't this what happened to Firefox?

Re:Adding features to a minimalist web browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387090)

As they add features, when does it no longer become minimalist?

Re:Adding features to a minimalist web browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387132)

That's a HUGE over-simplification.

You can add features to a minimalist browser and still have it be minimalist. It depends on the feature and the implementation.

One of Chrome 12's new features? The ability to define rules for Flash content storing and cookies, and the ability to clear the cookies, natively. This isn't useless cruft, or "we ran out of useful ideas so here's something new and shiny," this is something that browsers have needed since the advent of Flash.

Re:Adding features to a minimalist web browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387142)

Minimalist != bloat-free

Chrome's binaries were always bigger than Firefox's, and the memory usage is also a problem with many tabs.

GPU acceleration? (1)

Frederic54 (3788) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386894)

And since Chrome 10 or 11, they disabled GPU acceleration of flash video... so even if my ION laptop is highly capable of decoding 1080p, I can NOT watch youtube video in more than 360p. It has worked for years and they disabled it, shame...

Before someone ask, I have the latest nvidia driver, flash, I disabled the chrome black-list, etc.

Re:GPU acceleration? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386946)

Hmm, really? Not doubting your word per say, but my wife and I spent last weekend watching 1080p flash videos full screen (connected to the TV) pretty much non-stop using Chrome 11.

She has a first generation HP ION netbook. There's no way in hell the CPU could have handled it.

Re:GPU acceleration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36386994)

Have they finally gotten around to fixing the Flash "flickering" problem that's been happening on the OS X versions of Chrome for god-knows-how-long now? In case you don't know, thanks to Chrome's built-in Flash plugin, every time you go to a site that features Flash video, the video overlay will flicker incessantly. This even happens on YouTube. You'd think Google would try to get one of their products to work well with another of their products. But nope! And since the plugin is built in, you can't update it, replace it, etc.

Re:GPU acceleration? (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387136)

There's no HTML5 hardware acceleration either. At least not on my machine (Athlon X2 5600+, nVidia 8800GTS 640), which stutters in every HTML5 speed tests I've run under Chrome. Firefox, on the other hand, runs those tests just fine.

How very underwhelming.

Re:GPU acceleration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387340)

Right-click Flash-video -> Settings -> Video -> "Enable hardware acceleration".
There you go.

master password (1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386916)

does chrome have it's own local master password yet? until then i am never going to use it.

Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge (1)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386952)

"...without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download." He then grinned and winked knowingly.

Is 24% enough for us to get a UI fix, Slashdot? (3, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#36386970)

It's getting a bit old that any click within a comment, including within the textarea while I'm trying to reply, gets interpreted as clicking on the "Parent" link, thus requiring me to open the entire thread all the way to the root.

Re:Is 24% enough for us to get a UI fix, Slashdot? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387532)

It's getting a bit old that any click within a comment, including within the textarea while I'm trying to reply, gets interpreted as clicking on the "Parent" link, thus requiring me to open the entire thread all the way to the root.

Yes, yes, GOD YES. I'm so sick of it.. I tried running Safari to try another browser, and the performance is terrible on my Netbook... I know IE is terrible performance as well. I haven't tried Firefox, so I won't say for sure that Chrome is the only reasonable browser for my Netbook, but its looking darn close.

Re:Is 24% enough for us to get a UI fix, Slashdot? (1)

splict (1024037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387614)

Since it happens on my Firefox installs, too, I'm going to guess that the percentage of affected users needs to be much higher than 24-26%.

solution: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387662)

click on the "comment subject" input type=text line, then hit tab to get into the textarea field without triggering the errant javascript

yes, i know, this sucks too, it's only a half-measure. it's just easier to manage until slashdot finally fixes their javascript

slashdot: i code for the web. my desktop always has 5 browsers open: firefox, safari, ie, chrome, and opera. i test to make sure my code works in all five

slashdot: please make sure you do the same before you release your code to the wild

thanks

Re:Is 24% enough for us to get a UI fix, Slashdot? (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387672)

Getting very old.

IMO, the absolute worst part about using Slashdot.

Meanwhile, in Switzerland... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387102)

The Bilderberg Group is meeting to discuss their next steps to jack up energy prices, trash national economies, restrict internet freedom, expand the global high-tech police state, and pick the US taxpayer's pocket to pay for more illegal wars in the Middle East and out-of-control European debt. Ron Paul doesn't think that US taxpayers should be on the hook for European governments who can't balance a budget. Obama disagrees with Ron Paul on this point. So much for HopeAndChange.

Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (3, Insightful)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387220)

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?fid=29ea05faa34bade40004a21398e523be&hl=en [google.com]

Mid-2011 and a web browser this 'Mature' still doesn't have Print Preview. Oh well, at least you can use '3D-Accelerated CSS'.

Which do you think I need more?

Re:Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387388)

What do you use print preview for? Obviously, previewing before printing, but for what? Does the preview sometimes make you decide you don't really want to print the page? Are you tweaking HTML to get better print formatting on a particular browser?

I can see using preview on word processors, spreadsheets, etc., but printed web pages pretty much are what they are. I've never felt the need to preview, so I'm curious what your use case is.

Re:Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (1)

sehryan (412731) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387578)

I am designing a website right now, and I need it to look a certain way when it prints. I am using a print stylesheet to optimize the format for printing.

In Firefox and IE, checking the format is as simple as print preview. I have yet to test it in Chrome, because I am going to have to actually print it to see what it looks like, and then every time I make an adjustment, which could be quite a bit of paper.

The irony is that I usually test in Chrome first for screen. But because no print preview, I have been using FF as my primary. It doesn't even need to be core - make it an extension.

Re:Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (1)

eggz128 (447435) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387718)

I have yet to test it in Chrome, because I am going to have to actually print it to see what it looks like, and then every time I make an adjustment, which could be quite a bit of paper.

Install a PDF virtual printer. Still not quite as convenient, but much cheaper.

Re:Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387720)

cutepdf - print to pdf. shhhhhh

Re:Is this the version with Print Preview? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36387590)

Wait, you still print things? Like... on paper?

I think the last document I actually printed on paper was my tax filing for 2007 or 2008...

TheInquirer is the source..... (1)

TafBang (1971954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387504)

What is all this fake news about... Is slashdot = to the onion... If anybody knows any serious sites with real info and science and news. message me please

Google Gears (1)

CyDharttha (939997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387752)

They removed Gears from this release. I have an app that has a full offline mode and relies on Gears; as a band-aid fix yesterday I had to downgrade a user to Chrome 11 that had automatically updated. I know, I need to get with the times and port my code to HTML 5. Even more so, as Gears only supports Firefox up to 3.6, and IE up to 8.

Launch apps from Omnibox (1)

Woogiemonger (628172) | more than 2 years ago | (#36387794)

Just a note.. I figured out launching apps from the omnibox, one of Chrome 12's new features, only means an app installed via the chrome app store. You can't just type "cmd.exe" or "Command Prompt" and expect it to launch. But if you install the Angry Birds app via the Chrome Web Store, you can type "Angry Birds" and your game will load.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...